Petroc-HER-14

Higher Education Review of Petroc
November 2014
Contents
About this review ..................................................................................................... 1
Key findings.............................................................................................................. 2
QAA's judgements about Petroc ........................................................................................... 2
Good practice ....................................................................................................................... 2
Recommendations................................................................................................................ 2
Affirmation of action being taken........................................................................................... 2
Theme: Student Employability............................................................................................... 3
About Petroc............................................................................................................. 3
Explanation of the findings about Petroc .............................................................. 5
This section explains the review findings in more detail. .................................... 5
1 Judgement: The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on
behalf of degree-awarding bodies.................................................................................. 6
2 Judgement: The quality of student learning opportunities............................................. 17
3 Judgement: The quality of the information about learning opportunities....................... 35
4 Judgement: The enhancement of student learning opportunities ................................. 38
5 Commentary on the Theme: Student Employability...................................................... 41
Glossary.................................................................................................................. 43

1
About this review
This is a report of a Higher Education Review conducted by the Quality Assurance Agency
for Higher Education (QAA) at Petroc. The review took place from 25 to 28 November 2014
and was conducted by a team of three reviewers, as follows:
 Dr Chris Stevens
 Mr Nabeel Zaidi
 Miss Alyson Bird (student reviewer).
The main purpose of the review was to investigate the higher education provided by Petroc
and to make judgements as to whether or not its academic standards and quality meet UK
expectations. These expectations are the statements in the UK Quality Code for Higher
Education (the Quality Code)1
setting out what all UK higher education providers expect of
themselves and of each other, and what the general public can therefore expect of them.
In Higher Education Review, the QAA review team:
 makes judgements on
- the setting and maintenance of academic standards
- the quality of student learning opportunities
- the information provided about higher education provision
- the enhancement of student learning opportunities
 provides a commentary on the selected theme
 makes recommendations
 identifies features of good practice
 affirms action that the provider is taking or plans to take.
A summary of the findings can be found in the section starting on page 2. Explanations of
the findings are given in numbered paragraphs in the section starting on page 6.
In reviewing Petroc the review team has also considered a theme selected for particular
focus across higher education in England and Northern Ireland.
The themes for the academic year 2014-15 are Student Involvement in Quality Assurance
and Enhancement and Student Employability,2
and the provider is required to select, in
consultation with student representatives, one of these themes to be explored through the
review process.
The QAA website gives more information about QAA and its mission.3
A dedicated section
explains the method for Higher Education Review4
and has links to the review handbook and
other informative documents. For an explanation of terms see the glossary at the end of this
report.
1
The UK Quality Code for Higher Education is published at: www.qaa.ac.uk/quality-code
2
Higher Education Review themes: www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-
guidance/publication?PubID=106
3
QAA website: www.qaa.ac.uk/about-us.
4
Higher Education Review web pages: www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews-and-reports/how-we-review-higher-
education/higher-education-review

2
Key findings
QAA's judgements about Petroc
The QAA review team formed the following judgements about the higher education provision
at Petroc.
 The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of its
degree-awarding bodies meets UK expectations.
 The quality of student learning opportunities meets UK expectations.
 The quality of the information about learning opportunities meets UK expectations.
 The enhancement of student learning opportunities meets UK expectations.
Good practice
The QAA review team identified the following features of good practice at Petroc.
 The strategic approach to developing and extending student employability skills,
which are integrated into the curriculum across all programmes (Expectation B4).
 The range of additional learning support in place for students accessing and
undertaking higher education programmes (Expectation B4).
Recommendations
The QAA review team makes the following recommendations to Petroc.
By April 2015:
 ensure that procedures for moderation and marking, including the use of a third
marker, are clearly defined, fair and transparent (Expectations B6 and A3.2)
 ensure that admissions policies and procedures provide a transparent and reliable
framework for making and recording decisions on non-standard entrants and can
demonstrate fairness (Expectation B2).
By September 2015:
 develop and implement a formal process to ensure that information for all
stakeholders is fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy (Expectation C)
 implement a more robust process for the development of policies and procedures to
ensure they are comprehensive and informed by evaluation of practice
(Expectations C, B2, B5 and B10)
 develop a more systematic approach to the enhancement of student learning
opportunities, including the effective identification, dissemination and embedding of
good practice (Enhancement).
Affirmation of action being taken
The QAA review team affirms the following actions that Petroc is already taking to make
academic standards secure and/or improve the educational provision offered to its students:
 the actions being taken to formalise procedures for the support and development of
lecturers that are aligned to the particular needs of those delivering higher
education programmes (Expectation B3).

3
Theme: Student Employability
The College approach to employability is grounded in the Strategic Plan and reflects the
needs of local employers and learners.
Further explanation of the key findings can be found in the handbook available on the QAA
webpage explaining Higher Education Review.
About Petroc
Petroc (the College) is a large provider of further and higher education programmes that was
formed by the merger of North Devon College and East Devon College in 2008. The College
offers a broad curriculum delivered across campuses in Barnstaple, Tiverton and Holsworthy
to serve principally the communities of north, mid and east Devon, Torridge and north
Cornwall. At the time of the review, the College had approximately 5,000 students, of which
500 were enrolled onto higher education programmes. The majority of higher education
provision is delivered at the Brannams site in Barnstaple and is offered in six of the seven
academic schools at the College, namely: Architecture and the Built Environment; Business
Manufacturing and Transport; Creative Industries; Humanities and Science; Health, Fitness
and Supported Learning; and Lifestyle. The programme portfolio mainly consists of full-time
and part-time foundation degree programmes although the College also offers four Higher
National Certificates and a BA (Hons) Professional Development framework delivering
bachelor awards in business and management, creative industries and early childhood
studies.
The College vision is to be 'An outstanding college at the heart of an outstanding learning
community; economically, culturally and socially' and the underpinning mission statement is
to 'Drive forward educational, economic and cultural success by continually raising the
aspirations, knowledge and skills of individuals, communities and businesses'. Its Strategic
Plan 2011-16 identifies higher education as one of four key strategic areas for development
with the overall aim to increase the number of higher education learners. The key strategic
objectives in the plan are expanded on in the Higher Education Strategic Plan. The strategic
direction is led by a Principalship which consists of the Principal, Deputy Principal, Vice
Principal and Director of Resources. The Senior Management Team meets weekly and
comprises the Principalship; a Deputy Director; Heads of School; Head of Administration;
and Head of Student Services. Since 2011, one of the Heads of School has also fulfilled the
role of the HE Coordinator and reports regularly on higher education matters across the
College.
All higher education programmes at the College are delivered through a partnership
arrangement with the Plymouth University. The terms and conditions of the relationship are
outlined in an Academic Cooperation Agreement which was most recently updated in 2013.
The number of higher education programmes offered by the College has increased
significantly since the last QAA review (an Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review
(IQER) in 2010) and there has been a slight increase in the overall number of higher
education students. The School structure and senior management arrangements remain
largely unchanged. Higher education provision continues to be delivered exclusively at the
Barnstaple campus across two sites. A significant development in this regard is the
designation of the Brannams site for the exclusive delivery of higher education programmes.
Since September 2014, the majority of higher education provision has been based at the
Brannams site. The College has also recently approved its first provision at level six of The
Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland
(FHEQ) with three honours degrees now being delivered.

4
The 2010 IQER reported seven features of good practice and seven desirable
recommendations for action. Although some of these features of good practice, such as the
use of external academic frames of reference, are reflected in current practice, the review
team did not see evidence of how other aspects of the good practice had been maintained or
developed since the last review. With regards to the recommendations, while all areas had
undergone consideration by the College, actions relating to some recommendations had
only recently been completed. For example, the IQER recommended that the College
discuss with the University whether a periodic review process for higher education provision
would be beneficial. While this discussion had taken place since 2010, the first periodic
reviews were only conducted in June 2014. Similarly, discussions had been recommended
between the College and University on whether the proportion of change permitted to
programmes in any one year was too high. An internal College meeting was held in June
2014 and discussion with the University did not take place until July 2014, which has not fully
addressed the concern raised at the last review. Although it is recognised that progress on
some actions are dependent on the University, the review team considers that the College
has not adopted a systematic approach to addressing the outcomes from external reviews,
and progress in some areas have not been timely.

5
Explanation of the findings about Petroc
This section explains the review findings in more detail.
Terms that may be unfamiliar to some readers have been included in a brief glossary at the
end of this report. A fuller glossary of terms is available on the QAA website, and formal
definitions of certain terms may be found in the operational description and handbook for the
review method, also on the QAA website.

6
1 Judgement: The maintenance of the academic
standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding
bodies
Expectation (A1): In order to secure threshold academic standards, degree-
awarding bodies:
a) ensure that the requirements of The Framework for Higher Education
Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are met by:
 positioning their qualifications at the appropriate level of the relevant
framework for higher education qualifications
 ensuring that programme learning outcomes align with the relevant
qualification descriptor in the relevant framework for higher education
qualifications
 naming qualifications in accordance with the titling conventions
specified in the frameworks for higher education qualifications
 awarding qualifications to mark the achievement of positively defined
programme learning outcomes
b) consider and take account of QAA's guidance on qualification
characteristics
c) where they award UK credit, assign credit values and design programmes
that align with the specifications of the relevant national credit framework
d) consider and take account of relevant Subject Benchmark Statements.
Quality Code, Chapter A1: UK and European Reference Points for Academic
Standards
Findings
1.1 The Academic Co-operation Agreement is drafted in line with the Quality Code and
sets out the University's and College's respective obligations, undertakings and parameters
of operation. The University is the sole degree-awarding body for higher education provision
delivered at the College and retains overall control of the design and content of programmes,
the setting of academic standards and quality assurance processes that ensure the
maintenance of academic standards. The University's Academic Regulations for Taught
Programmes (2013-14) specify the credit weighting of undergraduate awards, signpost the
correct titling of undergraduate awards and outline the grading and classification thresholds
for qualifications.
1.2 The review team examined a range of documents relating to the setting and
maintenance of academic standards, including the partnership agreement between the
University and the College, the University's academic regulations, the University's guide to
designing programmes and modules, minutes of validation meetings and approval
documents. The team also met senior staff, programme managers and lecturers during the
review visit to explore the use of external frames of reference.

7
1.3 The review team confirms that the College makes appropriate use of external
reference points in the design and assessment of programmes, including the FHEQ, Subject
Benchmark Statements and the Foundation Degree Qualification Benchmark. Additionally,
the College uses the South East England Consortium (SEEC) for Credit Accumulation and
Transfer level descriptors in setting learning outcomes. These frames of reference are
applied during programme approval and validation and in the production of the Programme
Quality Handbooks that are provided to students. During the visit, senior staff, programme
managers and lecturers provided detailed examples of how the FHEQ is applied in
programme design, with clear reference being made to level descriptors across levels 4, 5
and 6. Good use is made of Subject Benchmark Statements in designing programmes, and
University templates used to demonstrate engagement with benchmarks are clear.
1.4 The review team confirms that the College fulfils the requirements of the degree-
awarding body effectively and ensures that academic standards are set and maintained with
reference to appropriate external benchmarks. The review team therefore concludes that the
Expectation is met and the level of risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

8
Expectation (A2.1): In order to secure their academic standards,
degree-awarding bodies establish transparent and comprehensive academic
frameworks and regulations to govern how they award academic credit and
qualifications.
Quality Code, Chapter A2: Degree-Awarding Bodies' Reference Points for
Academic Standards
Findings
1.5 The University is ultimately responsible for securing the academic standards of the
programmes offered at the College. The College is responsible for the design, delivery and
assessment of the programmes offered and operates within the frameworks outlined in the
University's Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes. This document is used to
specify and govern the accumulation of credits and academic progression for higher
education programmes offered by the College.
1.6 The review team explored the use of academic frameworks by reviewing relevant
documentation, including policies and regulations, programme specifications and
Programme Quality Handbooks. The review team met programme managers, academic and
support staff and students during the visit to discuss their understanding of the academic
frameworks and regulations that govern higher education provision.
1.7 All programmes of study are organised by module, with the majority of these set at
the value of 20 credits. Each taught module has a module record, which can only be
changed through a submission requiring University approval. The module record states the
academic level at which the module is assessed and also contains the aims, intended
learning outcomes and the teaching and assessment strategy. Module records are held
within the programme specifications which are embedded within Programme Quality
Handbooks. The documentation detailing changes to programmes is held by the University
alongside existing validation records relating to the programme.
1.8 Module, level and award pass marks are stated in the University's Academic
Regulations for Taught Programmes, and meetings with staff assured the review team that
these are clearly understood. Programmes hold two Subject Assessment Panels a year
before submitting agreed marks to the Awards Board where external examiners and
representatives from the University are present. The Awards Board officially confers the
awards and results are published to students within one week. Student results are held by
both the College and the University.
1.9 The College operates within the regulatory framework of the University which are
transparent and comprehensive in governing how academic credit and qualifications are
awarded. The review team therefore concludes that the Expectation is met and the level of
risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

9
Expectation (A2.2): Degree-awarding bodies maintain a definitive record of
each programme and qualification that they approve (and of subsequent
changes to it) which constitutes the reference point for delivery and
assessment of the programme, its monitoring and review, and for the
provision of records of study to students and alumni.
Quality Code, Chapter A2: Degree-Awarding Bodies' Reference Points for
Academic Standards
Findings
1.10 As defined in the partnership agreement, it is the responsibility of the University to
maintain the definitive records for each approved programme and qualification. Each
programme has a Programme Quality Handbook produced to a University template. This
contains the programme specification and module records and serves as the definitive
document used as the reference point for delivery and assessment of the programme by
College staff. Validation documentation, and details of any subsequent changes to
programmes are held by the University. The University provides all students with a transcript
recording their results at the conclusion of each stage of their studies and on completion or
exit. The transcript provides an overview of results for each component piece of assessment
as well as aggregate marks. The University also issues the degree certificate for students on
successful completion of their studies.
1.11 The review team analysed information relating to this Expectation in programme
specifications, Programme Quality Handbooks, validation documentation and transcripts.
During the review, the team met programme managers, academic and support staff and also
examined documentation available online.
1.12 The review team confirms that Programme Quality Handbooks are comprehensive,
useful and accessible documents. The inclusion of the programme specification within these
handbooks improves the visibility of the programme specification to students. Programme
Quality Handbooks are kept up to date and made accessible to students throughout the year
through the virtual learning environment (VLE). While progression information is included in
the College Student Quality Handbook issued at induction, not all Programme Quality
Handbooks reviewed by the team were consistent in including programme-specific
progression information. Although the University formally issues records of study to students,
the College also keeps a record of student achievement which is used for monitoring
progression trends. Students the team met are generally aware of how the award
classifications are calculated and expressed content with the level of support they receive
from tutors when results are released.
1.13 Overall, the review team considers that the College fulfils its responsibilities to the
awarding body and makes effective use of definitive programme records as the reference
point for the delivery and assessment of programmes. The review team therefore concludes
that the Expectation is met and the level of risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

10
Expectation (A3.1): Degree-awarding bodies establish and consistently
implement processes for the approval of taught programmes and research
degrees that ensure that academic standards are set at a level which meets the
UK threshold standard for the qualification and are in accordance with their
own academic frameworks and regulations.
Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes-
Based Approach to Academic Awards
Findings
1.14 The approval of higher education programmes offered at the College is ultimately
the responsibility of the awarding body. The College is, however, an active participant in the
design and development of its higher education programmes and has also introduced initial
approval procedures prior to the commencement of the University approval process (see
section B1). Awarding body approval is managed through two stages, both of which are
overseen by the University and attended by appropriate staff from the College. The first
stage provides a 'critical-friend approach' to assist the programme team and scrutinises the
documentation to determine that it is fit for approval. The second stage gives formal approval
and enables external assessors to determine that the programme meets University
requirements and national expectations. The University provides advice and guidance
through the Faculty Partnership Manager and Academic Liaison Person to support the
College in programme development. Once approved, changes can be made to programmes
through a formal process which requires approval by the University.
1.15 The review team tested the approach to programme development and the
consideration of subject and qualification benchmark statements by scrutinising a range of
documentation submitted as part of programme approval processes. During the visit, the
team met staff, employers and students to explore the operation of the University process
and the College's internal approvals policy and procedure.
1.16 The review team confirms that the College produces validation documentation in
line with University requirements, comprising an approval document, an operations
specification, a programme specification, and module and resource descriptors. Both stages
of the University process have clear terms of reference, a consistent agenda, and produce
minutes and action plans. The team saw consistent evidence that academic and
professional/employer expertise is used at the second stage of approval. Conditions and
recommendations at stage two are clearly set out, and formally signed off by the University.
Validation reports and meetings with academic and support staff confirmed that relevant
guidance is available to staff regarding academic levels, and that the characteristics of
programmes and learning outcomes have been mapped to appropriate benchmark
statements.
1.17 The College is permitted by its awarding body to modify up to 50 per cent of the
modules in a programme, each year, without recourse to re-validation. The IQER report
raised concerns over whether the proportion of change permitted to programmes in any one
year was too high. Following discussion between the University and College in June 2014,
the view was taken that a change to this might compromise the ability to maintain
programme currency and that the College would not operate the change procedure in such a
way as to affect standards The review team confirms that the module change process is
operated in accordance with the regulations of the awarding body and that module changes
are approved by external examiners. Although the review team saw no current evidence that
standards were at risk, the action taken since the IQER has not fully addressed the issue or
put any additional safeguards in place.

11
1.18 The review team considers that the College carries out its responsibilities effectively
to ensure that the programme design process takes account of relevant professional and
subject benchmark statements. The College adheres to the approval processes of its
awarding body, including those for the production of definitive information about the
programmes of study. The review team therefore concludes that the Expectation is met and
the level of risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

12
Expectation (A3.2): Degree-awarding bodies ensure that credit and
qualifications are awarded only where:
 the achievement of relevant learning outcomes (module learning
outcomes in the case of credit and programme outcomes in the case of
qualifications) has been demonstrated through assessment
 both UK threshold standards and their own academic standards have
been satisfied.
Findings
1.19 The College is responsible for setting and marking assessments in accordance with
the awarding body assessment policies, procedures and regulations, including the
University's Academic Regulations for Taught Programmes. The framework for the
moderation and marking of student assessed work is set out by the University in its Marking
and Moderation Policy and disseminated through the College document Higher Education
Assessment, Marking and Feedback to Learners. As stated above, each programme has a
programme specification, which sets out the aims and intended learning outcomes and maps
these to the Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy. The programme specification
also identifies any exemptions to the University academic regulations that may apply.
Assessment is managed at module level and module records contain details of the aims,
academic level, learning outcomes and assessment methods. A scheme of work for each
module is produced for students with further details on the method of assessment.
Assessment briefs and feedback sheets also outline the relationship between intended
learning outcomes and assessment. The University operates a two-stage process for the
consideration of assessment marks and awards through Subject Assessment Panels and
Award Boards.
1.20 The review team considered the effectiveness of the approach to the award of
credit and qualifications by looking at relevant University and College policies, regulations
and procedures, programme specifications, assessment information and reports from
validation and assessment boards. The review team also met academic staff, support staff
and senior staff to discuss the procedures in place.
1.21 The review team confirms that assessment is designed to ensure that programme
learning outcomes can be met. Programme specifications and module records produced
through the approval process demonstrate that each qualification is allocated to the relevant
level of the FHEQ and the University validation processes ensure that the level and volume
of study are appropriate. The review team saw evidence that the College produces and
maintains well-constructed definitive module records and assessment briefs. Staff met by the
review team demonstrated an understanding of the assessment regulations and policies and
provided evidence of engagement with them. From the evidence of minutes, the team was
able to confirm that the operation of Subject Assessment Panels and Award Boards was
robust. The review team found, however, that while information on assessment processes
produced by the University and College was generally clear, there was a lack of specificity
within the documentation regarding the approach to resolving assessment differences
between the first and second marker which is discussed in more detail in section B6 of
this report.
1.22 Overall, the College follows the arrangements for assessment set out by its
awarding body and carries out its responsibilities effectively to ensure that the achievement

13
of relevant learning outcomes has been demonstrated through assessment. The review
team therefore concludes that the Expectation is met and the level of risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

14
Expectation (A3.3): Degree-awarding bodies ensure that processes for the
monitoring and review of programmes are implemented which explicitly
address whether the UK threshold academic standards are achieved and
whether the academic standards required by the individual degree-awarding
body are being maintained.
Findings
1.23 The monitoring and review of programmes is conducted in line with the processes
established by the University. The College principally conducts ongoing programme
monitoring and review of higher education provision through Programme Committee
Meetings held for each programme and a single Joint Board of Studies attended by the
University. Programme Committee Meetings occur twice a year and follow a standard
agenda set by the University which requires discussion of each module and considers
teaching, assessment, availability of resources, external examiner feedback and programme
management. These meetings report to the Joint Board of Studies held twice a year which
maintains and monitors an overall action plan for improvement. This action plan is submitted
annually to the University. A periodic review process for programmes was introduced for the
first time in 2014. This was conducted for all higher education provision, the outcomes of
which inform the current Higher Education Enhancement Action Plan.
1.24 The review team tested the approach to monitoring and review by analysing
documentation, minutes and actions plans pertaining to Programme Committee Meetings,
Joint Boards of Study and the periodic review process. During the review, the review team
met staff and student representatives engaged in monitoring and periodic review activities.
1.25 Programme Committee Meetings are attended by programme managers, teaching
staff, the HE Co-ordinator, support staff and student representatives, the last of which are
required for quorum. From its meetings with staff and students and from its review of
documentation, the review team can confirm that the Programme Committee Meetings offer
an effective means of enabling the College and its awarding body to ensure that standards
are being reviewed and maintained. The Joint Board of Studies, which involves staff from the
University and senior College managers, offers both a strategic and operational perspective
of programme management and performance. Members of staff met by the review team
demonstrated a clear understanding of the processes involved, and the team confirmed that
Joint Board of Studies offered a robust mechanism for determining that academic standards
were being maintained. The team saw clear lines of responsibility and timescales for
completing monitoring activities and clear templates as to how reporting should be
undertaken. Although the periodic review structures are at an early stage of development,
the team was able to confirm that the new process offers an effective mechanism for offering
assurance to the awarding body that standards are being maintained.
1.26 The review team considers that the College effectively carries out its responsibilities
for monitoring and period review in accordance with University requirements and these
processes ensure that academic standards are being achieved and maintained. The review
team therefore concludes that the Expectation is met and the level of risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

15
Expectation (A3.4): In order to be transparent and publicly accountable,
degree-awarding bodies use external and independent expertise at key stages
of setting and maintaining academic standards to advise on whether:
 UK threshold academic standards are set, delivered and achieved
 the academic standards of the degree-awarding body are appropriately
set and maintained.
Findings
1.27 As outlined under Expectation A3.1, the College undertakes a two stage validation
process for new programmes with the second stage involving external advisers. Such
advisers are nominated by the College and approved by the University. Each programme
has an allocated external examiner, nominated by the College and appointed by the
University, who visits twice a year to report on the programme, attend the Award Board and
participate in the Subject Assessment Panel. External examiners are responsible for
ensuring that the academic standards are met and report to the University on an annual
basis. The College discusses and responds to the findings of external examiner reports
through Programme Committee Meetings and Joint Boards of Studies.
1.28 The review team considered a range of documents relating to the recruitment,
selection and involvement of external advisers and external examiners, including the
partnership agreement, validation documentation and minutes, external examiner
nomination forms and reports and the minutes from assessment panels and boards. The
review team also met staff, students and employers during the review to explore the College
approach to externality.
1.29 In meetings with the review team, senior staff, programme managers and lecturers
noted that they rely on advice and guidance given by external examiners during visits and
the outcome of their reports to ensure academic standards are maintained. This is evident in
monitoring external examiner feedback and follow-up activities during Programme
Committee Meetings and related action plans. The College's responsiveness to external
examiner feedback is considered in Expectation B7.
1.30 The review team considers that the College makes good use of external and
independent expertise in programme design, delivery and assessment in order to ensure
that academic standards are appropriately set and maintained. The review team therefore
concludes that the Expectation is met and the level of risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

16
The maintenance of the academic standards of awards
offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies:
Summary of findings
1.31 In determining its judgement on the maintenance of threshold academic standards
of awards at the College, the review team considered the findings against the criteria as
outlined in Annex 2 of the published Handbook. All Expectations in this area are met and the
level of risk is considered low in all cases.
1.32 Although the degree-awarding body retains ultimate authority for setting and
maintaining academic standards, the College plays an active part in enacting the University's
processes for programme design, approval and assessment. The College consistently
applies these procedures and in doing so fulfils its responsibilities as set out in the
partnership agreement. Where the College has developed its own procedures, such as
those for initial programme approval and on assessment marking and feedback, these are
aligned with the requirements of the University. Staff are aware, and regularly use, the
relevant frameworks for higher education in the design and delivery of programmes and are
familiar with the academic frameworks in place for maintaining academic standards.
1.33 The review team therefore concludes that the maintenance of the academic
standards of awards at the College meets UK expectations.

17
2 Judgement: The quality of student learning
opportunities
Expectation (B1): Higher education providers, in discharging their
responsibilities for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring
and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities, operate effective
processes for the design, development and approval of programmes
Quality Code, Chapter B1: Programme Design and Approval
Findings
2.1 As noted in paragraph 1.14, the design and approval of higher education
programmes offered at the College is ultimately the responsibility of its awarding body. The
College has, however, established its own internal systems and procedures for the
development of new programmes. The decision to seek approval for a programme rests with
the Senior Management Team based on strategic fit with the College Higher Education
Business Plan after which a detailed programme proposal is drafted and submitted to the
University. The Programme Proposal identifies how proposed programmes will be designed,
so as to ensure that the qualification descriptors on the FHEQ will be addressed, and an
adequate volume of study to enable learning outcomes will be provided. From spring 2014,
an Academic Development Committee has been established, chaired by the Principal and
containing senior staff with quality and resource responsibilities, to undertake this initial
approval stage. Following internal approval, the programme team at the College are
supported by the HE Coordinator and staff from the University to prepare the required
validation documents. The documentation is then considered, amended and finally approved
through the University's two-stage approval process as outlined in A3.1. Programme
changes are similarly presented to the awarding body through University templates for
approval.
2.2 In reviewing the approach to programme approval, the team met a range of College
staff, including those involved with the development, design and approval of programmes,
and looked at a range of programme documentation, approval reports and minutes, including
those of the awarding body.
2.3 The review team confirms that the programme design and approval process is a
collaborative activity involving academics and senior managers within the College, university
staff and external stakeholders. Meetings held with staff during the review demonstrated
awareness of the programme development process and the importance of the Quality Code.
New proposals are demand-led, as evidenced in part by the market research undertaken,
and the review team saw evidence that the initial approval process was appropriate in
ensuring that new proposals conform to the College Higher Education Business Plan and
take into consideration Student Number Controls, the business model and strategic plan.
Staff value the support, advice and guidance provided by the awarding body through the
Faculty Partnership Manager and Academic Liaison Person.
2.4 The review team considers that the College operates effective processes for the
design, development and approval of programmes and discharges its responsibilities to the
awarding body with regards to academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities.
The review team therefore concludes that the Expectation is met and the level of risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

18
Expectation (B2): Recruitment, selection and admission policies and
procedures adhere to the principles of fair admission. They are transparent,
reliable, valid, inclusive and underpinned by appropriate organisational
structures and processes. They support higher education providers in the
selection of students who are able to complete their programme.
Quality Code, Chapter B2: Recruitment, Selection and Admission
Findings
2.5 The College has a Higher Education Admissions Policy that sets out the
requirements for entry to higher education programmes, including preparatory programmes
offered by the College. This policy is published on the website and VLE. The College is
registered for UCAS and is responsible for setting its own entry requirements which are
made available to prospective students on the College website, UCAS and in the
prospectus. They are also published in Programme Quality Handbooks alongside
programme progression requirements. All applicants are required to attend an interview, and
offers made at interview are confirmed via UCAS. Admissions decisions are made in line
with the College's Equal Opportunities Policy.
2.6 The review team tested the operation and effectiveness of the admission,
recruitment and selection process by examining the strategic plan, admissions policies and
procedures, interview records and by meeting with students and staff including programme
managers responsible for admissions decisions.
2.7 The College has a commitment to widening participation informed by its partnership
agreement and strategic plan, which is widely embedded in the culture of staff teaching
higher education programmes. A number of students progress to higher education after
completing further education or preparatory programmes at the College. Students met by the
review team spoke positively about the support and guidance from the College before,
during and after the application process. Interviews are conducted by a trained programme
manager in order to assess the prospective student against the entry requirements and
determine an offer for admission, as well as provide information to the applicant. Programme
managers keep records of admissions interviews, although there is not a consistent
approach to this and the College indicated its intention to introduce a standardised form.
2.8 Applications from non-traditional learners are encouraged in the Higher Education
Admissions Policy and programme managers are permitted to use discretion when making
admissions offers to students who do not meet the standard entry requirements. The College
does not have an agreed approach for the use of discretion and there is no formal
mechanism to record when discretion has been used and the rationale for the decision
made. Discussions with staff involved in admissions confirmed that there is inconsistency in
how discretion is used, with programme managers citing a number of different, and
sometimes unquantifiable, qualities or attributes that they would recognise in a prospective
candidate when making an admissions offer. The review team also saw evidence of where
the College had taken risks in admitting students to a higher education programme, resulting
in a number of students leaving the programme. The College has significantly increased its
UCAS tariff entry requirements for October 2014 entry and the review team notes that, in the
context of the College's commitment to widening participation, the use of discretion in
admissions decisions would likely become more widespread. The lack of criterion for the
appropriate use of discretion and absence of a mechanism to record when discretion is used
indicate shortcomings in the strategic oversight of admissions decisions and is deemed by
the review team to present challenges for the effective consideration of applicants'
complaints and appeals. In light of the issues raised above, the review team therefore
recommends that the College ensure that admissions policies and procedures can

19
demonstrate fairness and provide a transparent and reliable framework for making and
recording decisions on non-standard entrants.
2.9 The review team also notes that the Higher Education Admissions Policy contains
incorrect information about the entry requirements for the preparatory programmes offered
by the College. Although the policy has been last reviewed in October 2014 and formally
approved by the Senior Management Team, the review team identified that the error was
evident in both the new and previous version. The review team considers that this
demonstrates a weakness in the College mechanisms for the production and monitoring of
published information which is outlined in more detail later in section C of this report.
2.10 The review team heard that the College has intentions to improve the admissions
process through standardising interview forms and mapping student achievement at entry
and upon completion for management information purposes. The team was also cognisant
that external examiners had not raised any concerns regarding the suitability of students
enrolled on higher education programmes. However, the lack of transparency in the
admissions process in relation to non-standard entrants called into question the College's
ability to demonstrate that admissions processes are reliable and underpinned by
appropriate organisational structures. The review team therefore concludes that the
Expectation is not met and the level of risk is moderate.
Expectation: Not met
Level of risk: Moderate

20
Expectation (B3): Higher education providers, working with their staff,
students and other stakeholders, articulate and systematically review and
enhance the provision of learning opportunities and teaching practices, so
that every student is enabled to develop as an independent learner, study their
chosen subject(s) in depth and enhance their capacity for analytical, critical
and creative thinking.
Quality Code, Chapter B3: Learning and Teaching
Findings
2.11 In October 2014, the College approved a Higher Education Learning and Teaching
Strategy, outlining the overarching strategic objectives for higher education delivery. At
subject level, each programme produces a Teaching, Learning and Assessment Handbook,
the structure of which is based on a University template. Further information about teaching
methods and delivery modes is contained in programme approval documents. The College
seeks to improve the quality of learning and teaching by supporting lecturers in undertaking
academic and teaching qualifications and self-directed research, providing remission from
normal duties for such activities. It also facilitates regular staff development days and an
annual scholarly activity conference. This is supplemented by a Learning and Performance
Coach, who provides developmental support to lecturers and oversees the peer review
process. Students provide feedback on teaching and learning through Programme
Committee Meetings and also through a Student Perception Questionnaire (SPQ) and
National Student Survey (NSS), the results of which are considered at programme and
senior management meetings.
2.12 The review team examined a range of documents relating to learning and teaching,
including relevant strategies and policies, survey results, minutes of meetings; handbooks,
lesson observation and peer review records, programme approval documents, as well as a
range of information published on the VLE for staff and students. During the visit, the review
team met senior staff, programme managers, lecturers, support staff, student
representatives and students to discuss the approach.
2.13 Senior staff and programme managers demonstrated a clear understanding of the
differences in approach when delivering learning and teaching across academic levels.
There is ample evidence of staff engaging in staff development activities and research
activity, including attendance at HE Staff Development Days and examples of staff research
on subject specific, management-related and pedagogical matters, which were subsequently
published on the VLE for staff and students to access. Lecturers and students also noted the
positive impact that staff development was having on learning and teaching, with instances
of industry practice informing sessions and learning materials.
2.14 Until April 2014, the College used both Ofsted-aligned lesson observations and
higher education peer reviews to support and develop lecturers delivering higher education
programmes. The College's stated intention is to standardise the documentation for peer
review and use this process to ensure high quality teaching on all higher education
programmes. The College no longer applies the Ofsted-aligned lesson observations to
higher education provision and is implementing a new peer review framework entitled PRIDE
(Peer Review, Induction and Evolve). A range of support structures and strategies are now
being formalised to facilitate this new peer review approach and ensure it is more
appropriate for higher education; for instance, the former approach made no distinction
between the support needs of new and existing staff, no mentoring support was in place for
new higher education lecturers and there was no means of ensuring objectivity during peer
review. The review team therefore affirms the actions being taken to formalise procedures

21
for the support and development of lecturers, which are aligned to the particular needs of
those delivering higher education programmes.
2.15 Overall, the review team considers that the College articulates, evaluates and
enhances the provision of learning opportunities and teaching practices and that further
development and formalisation of procedures will underpin a more consistent and supportive
approach for higher education staff. The review team therefore concludes that the
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

22
Expectation (B4): Higher education providers have in place, monitor and
evaluate arrangements and resources which enable students to develop their
academic, personal and professional potential.
Quality Code, Chapter B4: Enabling Student Development and Achievement
Findings
2.16 The College Strategic Plan outlines the objectives for higher education which
includes: strong underpinning and progression from further education programmes at the
College; clear and realistic progression opportunities to honours level study; and a
curriculum which meets the requirements of local employers and communities. This strategy
informs the approach to the support arrangements and resources provided for higher
education learners, particularly with regards to progression routes and embedding
employability skills within programmes.
2.17 Resources and support arrangements for programmes are considered by senior
management as part of the initial approval undertaken by the College against the Business
Plan, with more detail provided in the documentation submitted as part of the University
validation process. In addition, the College has overarching policies relating to support
arrangements, such as the Additional Learner Support Policy and the HE Marking,
Assessment and Feedback to Learners Policy, which outline how students are supported in
their learning. Support and resources are reviewed through Programme Committee
Meetings and the Higher Education Enhancement Action Plan. Each programme is allocated
a designated Learning Technologies and Library Services (LR) Co-ordinator, who liaises
with lecturers and attends Programme Committee Meetings to discuss the provision of
higher education resources.
2.18 The review team examined a variety of documents relating to student development,
including the minutes of Employer Advisory Groups, validation documentation, notes from
senior management meetings, relevant module guides and schemes of work, information on
additional learning support and the support provided through the VLE. During the visit,
the team met senior staff, students, employers, programme managers, lecturers and
support staff.
2.19 The College provides support for students prior to enrolment, through presentations
and open days, and this support is continued through induction and the first year of study so
that students are aware of the internal and external progression pathways available. A
University Academic Liaison Person normally visits students in the first year of the
foundation degree to discuss progression opportunities. Students met by the review team
confirmed that programme expectations are made clear through admission and induction
activities and that information on progression is provided. Students commented favourably
on tutorial support provided by lecturers which are supplemented by support staff, notably
the Learning Technologies and Library Services Co-ordinator who delivers workshops on
academic library and research skills and information literacy.
2.20 The College ensures that it provides all students with opportunities to develop their
employability skills. In furtherance of this, it has established seven Employer Advisory
Groups across Art and Design, Care, Construction, Engineering, Hair and Beauty, Music
Performance and Technology and Performing Arts. These meet at least twice a year, are
chaired by Heads of School and are tasked with aligning the curriculum to meet stakeholder
needs and facilitating work related learning opportunities. The College are also resourcing a
series of Graduate Employability events and workshops for higher education students which
involve local employers.

23
2.21 Employability skills are further embedded through the delivery of a Developing
Graduate Skills (DGS) module in the first year of all programmes. This common module is
contextualised to each programme and develops independent learning skills and reflective
practice, with an underpinning employability theme to support subsequent work-based
learning activities. The College supports staff in continuing professional development to
update their skills and inform programme content, resource provision and learning and
teaching delivery. Lecturers and students noted several instances of this, including importing
real world practice into module learning, such as professional website design, exhibiting
examples of professional practice on site and the commissioning of a book that was co-
produced by staff and students. All students are required to engage in work placements or
other work-based learning, and the College has provided music and events management
related projects through its own commercially run operations in areas where exposure to the
music industry would not otherwise be available locally. Students commented favourably on
their experience of undertaking projects and the employability skills gained from completing
the DGS module. Overall, the College takes a strategic approach to developing and
extending student employability skills that are integrated into the curriculum across all
programmes and the review team considers this to be good practice.
2.22 The College offers a range of additional learning support for students, which is
underpinned by its Additional Learning Support Policy. For example, the College encourages
disabled students to apply for a Disabled Student's Allowance (DSA). This extends to
disability, long-term health conditions, mental health conditions and specific learning
difficulties. Student additional learning support needs are also considered by the College
during work placements for UK-domiciled disabled students in receipt of DSA and non-UK-
domiciled disabled students, for whom the College can access support funding through the
widening participation fund. Students are positive about the variety of additional learning
support available and stated that the College had fully supported their particular needs
during their programme. The review team considers the range of additional learning support
in place for students accessing and undertaking higher education programmes to be good
practice.
2.23 The review team saw evidence that the provision of learning resources was
discussed through College meetings and acted upon accordingly. The liaison between
academic staff and support services staff was effective in ensuring that developing resource
needs were considered. The review team also saw evidence of where resource issues
raised by students had been addressed by the College, most notably the development of the
Brannams site to create a more appropriate higher education environment and resource.
2.24 Overall, the review team considers that the College provides, monitors and
evaluates the support arrangements and resources for higher education and that these
arrangements enable students to develop their academic, personal and professional
potential. The review team therefore concludes that the Expectation is met and the level of
risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

24
Expectation (B5): Higher education providers take deliberate steps to engage
all students, individually and collectively, as partners in the assurance and
enhancement of their educational experience.
Quality Code, Chapter B5: Student Engagement
Findings
2.25 The College encourages each programme to elect two student representatives per
level to participate in quality monitoring procedures, notably through membership of the
twice yearly Programme Committee Meetings. New student representatives are trained by
existing representatives and the Plymouth University Students Union, who also issue a
training handbook. Students are made aware of their student representatives in classes and
via the VLE. Students are also represented on the Joint Board of Studies Committee, which
the College recognises as a strategic link to the University for higher education students.
All students can attend regular open meetings with the HE Coordinator, known as Student
Forum Meetings, and termly meetings with the Principalship. Information gathered at these
various meetings is reported to the Senior Management Team and result in action plans
published online. The College is in the process of developing a Student Engagement in
Quality Assurance and Enhancement Strategy which was in draft form at the time of the
review.
2.26 The review team analysed the operation and effectiveness of student engagement
by examining the involvement of student representatives in College committee structures,
the impact of the student voice, and the feedback provided by the College in response to
student comments. The review team examined documentation, explored the use of the VLE
and met students, student representatives, staff and employers during the visit.
2.27 The review team confirms that students have a number of opportunities and a
variety of mechanisms to provide feedback to the College. Student representatives play an
active part in Programme Committee Meetings and provide feedback on the student
experience, learning and teaching quality and the provision of learning resources, all of
which are standing items on the agenda. The student representatives met by the team
understood and recognised the value of their role. Other students expressed satisfaction
with the system and are aware of their representatives, noting that contact details and
photos are made available on the VLE.
2.28 The relatively small higher education provision and strong relationship between staff
and students means that student feedback is often dealt with informally. Students are made
aware of the any actions taken by the College through 'You Said, We Did' posters displayed
around the College, a Higher Education newsletter and regular interactions with their student
representatives and staff. Students generally consider their views to be appreciated and
acted upon by the College. The review team saw evidence of the College responding to
student feedback, including the creation of the Brannams site which also involved students
in advising on the design of the space. The draft Student Engagement in Quality Assurance
and Enhancement Strategy builds on this collaborative approach to student involvement and
includes a proposal to involve students in programme design and development. However,
this strategy is not yet approved by the Senior Management Team, does not appear to have
been developed from a comprehensive review of the existing mechanisms used to engage
with students, and does not appear to have involved students or the wider staff constituency
in its compilation (see also section C).
2.29 Overall, the review team concludes that the approach to student engagement is
appropriate. Students are appreciative of the range of opportunities to engage with the
College, which will be further strengthened by the current work being undertaken by the

25
College to develop a strategy for engagement. Therefore, the review team concludes that
the Expectation is met and the level of risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

26
Expectation (B6): Higher education providers operate equitable, valid and
reliable processes of assessment, including for the recognition of prior
learning, which enable every student to demonstrate the extent to which they
have achieved the intended learning outcomes for the credit or qualification
being sought.
Quality Code, Chapter B6: Assessment of Students and the Recognition of
Prior Learning
Findings
2.30 As outlined under Expectation A3.2, the regulatory framework for assessment is
determined by the awarding body, whose staff chair the assessment boards that determine
final awards and classifications. Assessment tasks are set and marked by the programme
teams at the College and lecturers are encouraged to design assessments that make an
effective contribution to student learning. In October 2014 the College approved a Higher
Education Assessment, Marking and Feedback to Learners document, written in alignment
with the University policy, which includes general principles underpinning its approach to
assessment. Students are provided with information through assessment guidelines and
briefs, and the marking criteria for each assignment is provided through handbooks and the
VLE. There are systems in place for the recognition of prior learning, and procedures for
managing extenuating circumstances and academic misconduct.
2.31 The review team explored the approach to assessment by reviewing relevant
documentation including policy and procedure documents, programme documentation,
student handbooks, assignment briefs and feedback to students. During the visit, the team
also met senior staff, academic staff, and professional service staff involved in supporting
assessment.
2.32 The review team confirms that students are provided with clear and transparent
assessment guidelines and briefs. Students met during the review confirmed that feedback
is timely and effective, notably citing one form of assessment where feedback is given
immediately after the assessment activity, subject to ratification of the mark. Staff are
appropriately supported in assessment and the review team saw evidence of staff
development activity provided by the University and College, aimed at enhancing the quality
of assessment outcomes.
2.33 The framework for the moderation and marking of student assessed work is set out
by the University and further defined through the College document, Higher Education
Assessment, Marking and Feedback to Learners. This document is generally detailed and
outlines the key aspects of the assessment approach including the preference for
anonymous marking wherever possible, the transparent alignment of assessments to
learning outcomes, the volume of assessment and the need to minimise over-assessment of
learning outcomes through assessment design.
2.34 Staff met by the review team understood their responsibilities for assessment and
the processes to be followed. However, the review team identified a lack of clarity in the
documentation and through discussions with staff regarding the procedures for dealing with
a disparity in marks awarded by first and second markers. The documentation outlines the
parameters for when a third marker is required and indicates that the piece of work should
be referred to the programme manager for a decision. Through meetings with staff, the
review team noted some uncertainty regarding the application of this process, particularly
when the programme manager was either the first or second marker. While the review team
did not see evidence of third marking being a frequent occurrence, or any concern from
external examiners regarding the confirmation of marks, the moderation arrangements would

27
benefit from further detail, including arrangements to ensure that there is no conflict of
interest in the appointment of a third marker. The review team therefore recommends that
the College ensures that procedures for moderation and marking, including the use of a third
marker, are clearly defined, fair and transparent.
2.35 Overall, the review team can confirm that the College operates equitable, valid and
reliable processes of assessment in accordance with the requirements of the awarding body.
Staff are appropriately supported in assessment and the procedures are well known to staff
and students, although there is a lack of clarity regarding responsibilities for moderation. The
team therefore concludes that the Expectation is met and the level of risk is therefore low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

28
Expectation (B7): Higher education providers make scrupulous use of
external examiners.
Quality Code, Chapter B7: External Examining
Findings
2.36 The College nominates an external examiner for each of its programmes in line with
the awarding body criteria and forwards these to the University for approval. External
examiners are appointed for a maximum of four years and only in exceptional circumstances
is this term extended or a reappointment approved in the future. The roles and
responsibilities of external examiners are defined by the University, which also monitors their
performance to verify they are acting in accordance with its requirements. Initial induction
training is organised by the University and external examiners undertake two visits to the
College per year. External examiners are required to review assessment briefs, examination
papers and samples of marked student work and produce an annual report, which is
considered through Programme Committee Meetings and Joint Boards of Studies. Issues
arising from external examiners reports inform programme action plans and the Higher
Education Enhancement Action Plan. Reports are also considered during quality reviews
and through reports submitted by Programme Managers to their Heads of School.
2.37 The review team considered a range of documents related to external examining,
including the partnership agreement, external examiner nomination forms, and a sample of
minutes from Programme Committee Meetings, Joint Boards of Studies, Subject
Assessment Panels and Award Boards. During the visit the team met senior staff, lecturers
and support staff, programme managers and student representatives.
2.38 Senior staff and programme managers met during the review articulated the
process of engaging with and responding to external examiner findings, including discussion
through Programme Committee Meetings and Joint Boards of Studies, written responses to
external examiner findings and the related action plans. A sample of minutes from these
meetings and action plans demonstrate an active engagement and responsiveness to
external examiner feedback. Programme Committee Meeting minutes also demonstrate the
monitoring of external examiner appointments and termination. The review team confirms
that external examiner reports, responses and related minutes are published on the VLE,
which can be accessed by all students. The students met during the review demonstrated an
awareness of the external examining role with some student representatives having met
their examiner. Module leaders outlined their engagement with external examiners, including
one-to-one meetings during visits to discuss current assessments. Although the processes
for responding to issues raised by external examiners are robust, the review team did not
see evidence of how good practice highlighted by external examiners is systematically
identified and disseminated to enhance student learning opportunities (see section on
Enhancement).
2.39 The review team considers that the College has robust processes in place for
receiving, considering and responding to external examiner reports and makes scrupulous
use of this external input. The review team concludes that the Expectation is met and the
level of risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

29
Expectation (B8): Higher education providers, in discharging their
responsibilities for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring
and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities, operate effective, regular
and systematic processes for monitoring and for review of programmes.
Quality Code, Chapter B8: Programme Monitoring and Review
Findings
2.40 As noted in paragraph 1.23, the College monitors and reviews its higher education
provision through its committee structure. Programme Committee Meetings follow a
standard agenda and consider feedback on programme delivery from programme teams,
external examiners and students. Action plans, produced from each meeting, are monitored
and updated throughout the year. The outcomes from these meetings are reported to Joint
Board of Studies, attended by the University, which also follow a set agenda and produce an
action plan in a format set by the University. A process for the periodic review of
programmes was recently introduced which involved the submission of self-evaluation
documentation by the College and a series of meetings with the University. It is intended that
the outcomes of both these processes should feed into the Higher Education Enhancement
Action Plan which is considered by the Senior Management Team.
2.41 In testing the approach, the review team met staff and students engaged in
monitoring and periodic review. The team also read relevant documents, including the
minutes and action plans of Programme Committee Meetings and Joint Boards of Study,
the College Higher Education Enhancement Action Plan, and self-evaluation documents for
periodic review.
2.42 Staff met by the review team demonstrate a clear understanding of the processes
involved. Action plans from Programme Committee Meetings clearly identify proposed
actions, responsibilities, and appropriate timescales . Due consideration is given through
these meetings to student feedback from the representatives present but also through the
review of NSS results and the outcome of the College's SPQ. Feedback from external
examiners is also routinely considered and informs the action plan. The Joint Boards of
Studies provide an effective mechanism for ensuring that issues identified through the
monitoring and review process regarding the quality of learning opportunities are considered
at institutional level and reported to the University.
2.43 The periodic review process introduced in June 2014 involved the submission of a
self-evaluation document covering the whole of the College higher education provision after
which programmes were reviewed in clusters, each with an additional self-evaluation
document. The periodic review team held formal meetings with student representatives
within each cluster. Areas for enhancement identified through the periodic review process
are incorporated into the Higher Education Enhancement Action Plan which was considered
by the College in September 2014. Although the periodic review structures are at an early
stage of development at the time of the review, the process offers an effective mechanism
for assuring the awarding body that standards are being maintained and that the
programmes remain current and valid.
2.44 Overall, the review team confirms that the lines of responsibility, timescales and
templates for completing monitoring are clear. The team considers that the College carries
out its responsibility for the monitoring and review of programmes effectively and therefore
concludes that the Expectation is met and the level of risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

30
Expectation (B9): Higher education providers have procedures for handling
academic appeals and student complaints about the quality of learning
opportunities; these procedures are fair, accessible and timely, and enable
enhancement.
Quality Code, Chapter B9: Academic Appeals and Student Complaints
Findings
2.45 The College process for handling complaints for enrolled students is set out in the
Comments, Compliments and Complaints procedure, which also forms stage one of the
University's Student Complaints Procedure. Students who wish to submit an appeal against
assessment board decisions are referred to the University appeals procedure which is
outlined in its Assessment Board Appeal Policy. Policies and procedures for appeals and
complaints are made available to current students and support is provided by the College.
A report on complaints and resolutions is presented to the Board of Governors on an annual
basis. The complaints and appeals process for applicants is outlined in the College Higher
Education Admissions Policy made available on the College website.
2.46 The review team tested the operation and effectiveness of the complaints and
appeals procedures by examining documentation, including the relevant policies and
associated reports. During the visit, the team explored how these policies were implemented
in practice by meeting students and staff, as well speaking to the HE Coordinator and Heads
of School regarding their involvement in the investigation of complaints.
2.47 The review team confirms that information for current students on appeals and
complaints is made available at induction via the Student Handbook, on the VLE, and is
displayed in some teaching rooms. The formal documentation for the complaints procedure
and the appeals policy are clear in outlining the process, indicating how issues can be
escalated in the College and to the University, and specifying timescales for each stage.
There is also appropriate demarcation of procedures where an appeal incorporates a
complaint. The approach allows for appropriate independence of those considering appeals
and complaints, including student representation in the latter stages. Students met by the
team are aware of the policies and of the support available to them while engaging with the
complaints and appeals procedures. The review team also saw evidence of annual reporting
on the number of College-wide complaints and their resolutions, although there had been no
formal complaints from higher education students since 2011 and therefore little evidence of
how the College used this information for enhancement purposes.
2.48 Overall, the review team considers that the complaints and appeals processes
operated by the College are fair, accessible and timely with appropriate mechanisms in
place to deal with student issues. Students and staff are generally aware of the procedures
in place and appropriate support is available. The team therefore concludes that the
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

31
Expectation (B10): Degree-awarding bodies take ultimate responsibility for
academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities, irrespective of
where these are delivered or who provides them. Arrangements for delivering
learning opportunities with organisations other than the degree-awarding body
are implemented securely and managed effectively.
Quality Code, Chapter B10: Managing Higher Education Provision with Others
Findings
2.49 All higher education programmes incorporate work placements or other work-based
learning activities, such as work-based projects, commissioned work and consultancy
activities as part of the learning experience. Under the terms of the partnership agreement,
the College is responsible for the organisation and management of all such work-based
learning opportunities undertaken with external organisations. The College manages work
placement relationships between itself, students and employers through a range of
documents contained in the Work Placement Essential Information pack, which it issues to
students and employers prior to the commencement of work placements. Information
provided to students and employers for other work-based learning varies depending on the
activity. The College uses a customer relationships management (CRM) database to
manage its relationship with employers which also records health and safety checks. The
College also uses Employer Advisory Groups to advise and facilitate work-based learning
opportunities within the curriculum. Strategic oversight of work-based learning takes place at
programme level, with Heads of School evaluating the approach and management of work-
based learning in their programme areas and noting this in Programme Committee Meetings
and related action plans. Following the periodic review, the College developed the Higher
Education Work Based Learning Strategy for 2014-15 to encourage greater consistency in
the approach across subject areas.
2.50 The review team considered a range of documents and information relating to
working with other organisations including the partnership agreement, placement information
packs, completed templates and forms, written agreements between parties, health and
safety checks, risk assessments and examples of employer feedback forms. The review
team also had a demonstration of the College's CRM database and met employers, senior
staff, programme managers and students.
2.51 The review team confirms that the Work Placement Essential Information pack is a
detailed and useful document in managing and supporting the placement experience and
includes guidance on sourcing placements, clear statements regarding expectations, legal
requirements, codes of conduct, a tri-partite agreement and employer feedback forms. The
review team also saw evidence that health and safety and risk assessments are completed
where necessary. The pack includes information on links to other programme modules and
details of any summative assessments and it was clear how work-based learning activities
are interlinked with employability-focused modules. Other work-based learning opportunities,
such as projects, commissioned work and consultancy are managed in a more flexible
manner. For instance, programme managers liaise with employers to define the scope and
content of the work-based activity, the audit trail for which can include a series of emails,
a letter of introduction or informal meetings between the programme manager and employer.
While staff responsible for the organisation of work-based activities other than placements
are aware of the need for appropriate checks, the review team considers that the absence of
formalised procedures and/or documentation similar to that produced for work placements,
increased the scope for inconsistency in managing these activities (see also section C).
2.52 Employers met by the review team noted a long standing working relationship with
the College across a range of programmes at different levels and described a collaborative

32
approach to planning and managing work-based learning projects. Students spoke positively
of their experiences and provided examples of how work-based learning is managed by the
College, including the use of the information pack, completion of a safeguarding course prior
to undertaking the work placement and visits by lecturers during work placements.
Overall, the review team concludes that the College has appropriate mechanisms for
managing and supporting learning experiences facilitated by external parties. The
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

33
Expectation (B11): Research degrees are awarded in a research environment
that provides secure academic standards for doing research and learning
about research approaches, methods, procedures and protocols.
This environment offers students quality of opportunities and the support they
need to achieve successful academic, personal and professional outcomes
from their research degrees.
Quality Code, Chapter B11: Research Degrees
Findings
2.53 The College has no research degree provision; therefore this Expectation is
not applicable.

34
The quality of student learning opportunities:
Summary of findings
2.54 In determining its judgement on the quality of student's learning opportunities at the
College, the review team considered the findings against the criteria as outlined in Annex 2
of the published Handbook. All Expectations in this area are met, with the exception of
Expectation B2. The level of risk is considered low in all cases apart from Expectation B2
where the review team considers there is a moderate risk to the quality of learning
opportunities.
2.55 Under the terms of the partnership agreement, the College operates internal
procedures to monitor and develop the quality of students' learning opportunities. Although
the procedures for assuring and monitoring academic quality are generally sound, the review
team considers that there are shortcomings in some of the documentation used by the
College which demonstrates a lack of clarity on responsibilities in some areas and inhibits
the rigour in which some procedures are applied. While the procedures are broadly
adequate, these oversights and/or omissions create the potential for inconsistent practice.
Specifically, the review team recommends that the processes for admissions and
independent marking be strengthened in this regard to ensure transparency and fairness.
The review team also identified two aspects of good practice in the College approach which
both relate to the arrangements and resources in place to support students in their studies.
The first of these relates to the strategic approach taken to ensure that all students have the
opportunity to develop strong employability skills during their studies in preparation for
employment. The second good practice relates to the additional learning support provided
to students.
2.56 The review team therefore concludes that the quality of student learning
opportunities at the College meets UK expectations

35
3 Judgement: The quality of the information about
learning opportunities
Expectation (C): UK higher education providers produce information for their
intended audiences about the higher education they offer that is fit for
purpose, accessible and trustworthy.
Quality Code, Part C: Information about Higher Education Provision
Findings
3.1 The College provides information to a variety of stakeholders, including prospective
students, current students, employers and College staff involved in programme delivery. Its
website contains a dedicated section for its higher education provision which details the
programmes on offer, how to apply, open day events and the strategies, policies and access
agreements relevant to prospective students. The College also produces an annual printed
prospectus. The degree-awarding body has ultimate responsibility for publishing the Key
Information Set (KIS) data. Responsibility for the approval of information relating to the
marketing of programmes ultimately lies with the University. Programme teams have
responsibility for compiling this information, which is checked by the HE Coordinator and the
Marketing Department prior to submission for University approval.
3.2 The College publishes information for enrolled students on a dedicated Quality HE
page on the VLE which contains higher education policies, external examiner reports, the
College Student Handbook, Programme Quality Handbooks, HE Newsletters and relevant
course information. The Student Handbook provides generic information that is applicable to
all students, whereas Programme Quality Handbooks contextualise the programme specific
information for students. Responsibility for issuing students with the formal transcript of their
studies and degree certificate resides with the University and all students receive a transcript
after each stage recording their results.
3.3 The review team analysed the information provided by the College in printed format,
on the website and on the VLE. The team also examined the process for managing
published information. Meetings were held with staff, students and employers to explore the
quality of the information available to stakeholders.
3.4 The review team considers that the process for approving marketing information
through the University is functional. The Higher Education Enhancement Action Plan outlines
an intent to improve the channels of communication between programme teams and the
Marketing Department in this process. Meetings during the visit revealed that students are
generally satisfied with the level of information they receive from the College although a few
comments were made about the level of consistency on the VLE, information contained
within Programme Quality Handbooks and potential misinformation regarding funding
arrangements on one programme which was being investigated by the College. Students
confirmed that they received the Student Handbook and Programme Quality Handbook at
induction and that these documents are useful in defining expectations. Programme
Managers have responsibility for ensuring the information within handbooks is accurate and
individual members of teaching staff have responsibility for the accuracy of module
information. This information is updated on an annual basis. Results of student surveys are
available on the College website, as well as being displayed around the College on
electronic screens. The College has a dedicated virtual learning site for employers and those
met during the review confirmed satisfaction with the information received from the College.

36
3.5 The review team reviewed a number of published policies. In doing so, the team
noted inaccurate information in the Higher Education Admissions Policy relating to the entry
requirements for the preparatory programmes, despite this document being recently
reviewed and approved through the senior management team process. The review team
heard that all policies are subject to an Equality Impact Assessment and that some are
submitted to the Governors for consideration but there was a lack of clarity regarding which
policies should be submitted for further scrutiny and how the accuracy of these is verified.
In light of this uncertainty and the omissions noted in the information provided to staff on
independent marking and work-based learning arrangements noted elsewhere in this report,
the review team recommends that the College develop and implement a formal process to
ensure that information for all stakeholders is fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy.
3.6 The College updates policies on a two year rolling cycle although few documents
have dates or version numbers. A number of new higher education strategies, policies and
procedures have been introduced over the last year, including a Learning and Teaching
Strategy; Scholarly Activity Policy; Work-Based Learning Strategy; Assessment, Marking
and Feedback Policy; and also a new Student Engagement in Quality Assurance and
Enhancement Strategy and Employability Strategy that are available in draft form, although it
is not clear what mechanism is in place to identify the need for new policies or procedures or
how these are developed. The review team examined a number of documents where it was
unclear how the new policy, procedure or strategy was underpinned by a review of the
existing practice, and where staff and student awareness of these documents was not
widespread. Therefore, the review team recommends that the College implement a more
robust process for the development of policies and procedures to ensure they are
comprehensive and informed by evaluation of practice.
3.7 Overall, the review team considers that information to stakeholders is generally fit
for purpose, accessible and trustworthy and the review team therefore concludes that the
Expectation is met. However, the review team considers that there are current weaknesses
in the processes in place for both the development of internal policies and procedures and
the approval of these documents and therefore concludes that the level of risk is moderate.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Moderate

37
The quality of the information about learning
opportunities: Summary of findings
3.8 In determining its judgement on the quality of information produced the review team
considered the findings against the criteria as outlined in Annex 2 of the published
Handbook. The Expectation in this area is met and the level of risk is considered moderate.
3.9 The review team considers that information produced for prospective students is
generally sound and subject to a formal checking process undertaken by the College and
University. Information for current students on their programmes is provided through multiple
channels and includes information on programme requirements, and the quality assurance
of programmes, which is generally useful and trustworthy. The review team considers that
information produced by the College on internal policies and procedures displays
shortcomings both in the way that this is compiled and in the checking process to ensure
accuracy and completeness. This represents a weakness in the operation of the governance
procedures relating to policy development and approval and a lack of clarity of
responsibilities which the team considers presents a moderate risk to ensuring that such
documentation is coherent, comprehensive and consistently applied. The review team
therefore recommends that the College implements a more robust approach to the
development of policies and procedures and also develop and implement a formal process
to ensure that information to all internal and external stakeholder groups is fit for purpose,
accessible and trustworthy.
3.10 The review team concludes that the quality of information produced by the College
about its provision at the College meets UK expectations.

38
4 Judgement: The enhancement of student learning
opportunities
Expectation (Enhancement): Deliberate steps are being taken at provider level
to improve the quality of students' learning opportunities.
Findings
4.1 The College uses two main mechanisms for the enhancement of student learning
opportunities. The first is management action, derived from the work of senior management
in reflecting on the business and educational priorities of the institution. The second
mechanism is derived from the College quality processes. With regards to the former, the
College Strategic Plan for 2011-2016 identifies a number of strategic goals for higher
education, including an increase in the number of higher education learners; the
development of opportunities for progression to honours degrees; and ensuring that the
College can meet the current and future higher education needs of the local economy. The
Higher Education Strategy articulates these priorities further with actions assigned to senior
managers and a related Business Plan sets out medium-term aims which are monitored
through the Senior Management Team. The second mechanism for identifying and
progressing enhancement activity is the Higher Education Enhancement Action Plan that
draws together actions derived from standard programme monitoring and periodic review
processes. This action plan also outlines measures to be taken to enhance the quality of
learning opportunities, including responsibilities and target dates, and is also monitored
through the Senior Management Team. The HE Co-ordinator plays a central role in both
mechanisms, attending the Principalship when higher education provision is discussed,
attending Senior Management Team meetings on a weekly basis, and formal bi-weekly
meetings with the Deputy Principal/Director for Quality and Performance.
4.2 The review team analysed how the College operates its stated approach to
enhancement by reviewing a number of documents including reviews, reports, strategies
and action plans. The team also discussed enhancement in meetings with the Principal,
senior and academic staff, employers, students, and student representatives.
4.3 The review team saw a number of examples of enhancement activities that were
both strategically driven by the College and had arisen from feedback gathered through the
standard monitoring processes. For instance, the College has embedded employability in all
programmes through work-related opportunities and the inclusion of a standard Developing
Graduate Studies module across programmes. This strategic approach to developing
employability includes establishing in-house facilities to support industry exposure in music
and performing arts. The College has also delivered on the action identified in the 2013
Business Plan to offer level six programmes at the College. Since 2012 the College has both
encouraged and financially supported higher education teaching and support staff who wish
to join the Higher Education Academy. Notably, the College has also responded to concerns
around the quality of the student learning environment that were raised through the
monitoring processes, and delivered a bespoke higher education facility and library at the
Brannams site which has been well received by students.
4.4 As noted in paragraph 2.43, the periodic review process is a recent development
and the team was unable to evaluate its effectiveness in generating and fulfilling
enhancement opportunities. The review team, however, saw evidence that staff were
committed to the continuous improvement and enhancement of the student experience and
the recent developments in this area, led by the HE Co-ordinator, have amplified this
growing ethos of enhancement. In its approach to the enhancement of student learning
opportunities, the College seeks to build on the skills and knowledge of a range of

39
stakeholders. The College produces and uses a variety of data, such as a Student
Perception Questionnaire and National Student Survey quantitative data, progression data,
early leavers and destination report data and learner enrolment analysis. The College is also
planning to evaluate the relationship between student admission and achievement. The
review team, however, did not see evidence of how this and other data is used routinely and
consistently to evaluate and enhance its provision. It was also not clear from the
documentation or discussions with staff how the College sought to integrate and evaluate
the various enhancement initiatives in a systematic way. Furthermore, although the College
is robust in considering shortcomings identified through monitoring, there is little evidence of
deliberate procedures or processes used to identify and share good practice across the
higher education provision beyond informal mechanisms, and there is no formal mechanism
for sharing good practice from external examiner reports. In the light of these considerations,
the team recommends that the College develops a more systematic approach to the
enhancement of student learning opportunities, including the effective identification,
dissemination and embedding of good practice.
4.5 Overall, the College undertakes deliberate steps to improve the quality of the
student learning opportunities and the review team therefore concludes that the Expectation
is met and the level of risk is low.
Expectation: Met
Level of risk: Low

40
The enhancement of student learning opportunities:
Summary of findings
4.6 In determining its judgement on the enhancement of student learning opportunities
at the College, the review team considered the findings against the criteria as outlined in
Annex 2 of the published Handbook. The Expectation in this area is met and the level of risk
is considered low.
4.7 The College demonstrates that it takes deliberate steps to enhance the quality of
student learning opportunities and actions have been driven strategically to improve the
student experience for all students studying on higher education programmes. The quality
assurance framework, largely defined by the University, allows the College to be responsive
to feedback from students, external examiners and employers in order to rectify weaknesses
and monitor resulting actions. However, there is little emphasis in these procedures on the
identification and dissemination of good practice and there is scope for greater definition in
the operation and implementation of the approach to enhancement. The team recommends
that the College develops a more systematic approach to the enhancement of student
learning opportunities.
4.8 The review team therefore concludes that the College meets the Expectation and
the level of risk is low.

Petroc-HER-14

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (16)

Ähnlich wie Petroc-HER-14

Ähnlich wie Petroc-HER-14 (20)

Petroc-HER-14